"A federal judge has set an October 1 hearing date for a challenge to Michigan’s ban on gay marriage and adoptions by same-sex couples. A lesbian couple in Hazel Park is seeking the right to marry or jointly adopt the children they are raising together. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette says the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to continue setting their own rules on marriage, and he is defending the Michigan Constitution," Rick Pluta reports.

Kevyn Orr and union leaders discuss pension benefits

"A group of Detroit pension and union leaders have met in the first of two closed-door meetings with the restructuring team of the city's state-appointed emergency manager. Kevyn Orr wants huge cuts in pension benefits and health insurance to avoid the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Some bankruptcy experts say the session could be the tipping point that leads to an unprecedented bankruptcy," the Associated Press reports.

Reinstated law prohibits schools from taking union dues

A Michigan law prohibiting schools from taking payroll deductions for union dues is back on the books. A federal judge erased an injunction on the law after an appeals court struck down her 2012 decision suspending it. The law was approved by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Governor Rick Snyder. The appeals court said ending payroll deductions doesn't infringe on a union's right to free speech.

"Construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and in view of the Supreme Court’s current statement of the law, this Court cannot say that plaintiffs’ claims for relief are without plausibility. Plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court and they shall have it."

Friedman wants both sides in the case to appear in court on July 10. More from the Associated Press:

Friedman says he wants to discuss a trial date. He says last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision probably will be cited by the plaintiffs as well as state attorneys who are defending Michigan's 2004 ban on gay marriage.

After last week's U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the power for states to define marriage was left intact.

But gay rights advocates were emboldened to continue with their challenges to state laws barring gay marriage.

At a hearing on the case earlier this year, the two sides presented their arguments to Friedman.

Three months ago, in an extraordinary hearing held in the auditorium of the Wayne State University Law School, Friedman repeatedly challenged two lawyers from state Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office to explain what rational government purpose was served by treating same-sex couples differently. When the lawyers responded that Michigan had a legitimate interest in promoting “responsible procreation,” Friedman seemed more amused than persuaded, noting that many opposite-sex couples marry with no intention of conceiving or adopting children.

With the U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and remanding California's Proposition 8 case back to the lower courts, Judge Friedman will have more precedent with which to make his judgment from.

In today's ruling, Friedman wrote about how he expects the Supreme Court rulings to be used in this case:

Defendants will no doubt cite to the relevant paragraphs of the majority opinion espousing the state’s “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.”...They will couch the popular referendum that resulted in the passage of the MMA as “a proper exercise of [the state’s] sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.”...

Friedman writes the plaintiffs, DeBoer and Rowse, will use the Supreme Court's ruling, along with other cases, to support their claims:

And why shouldn’t they? The Supreme Court has just invalidated a federal statute on equal protection grounds because it "place[d] same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage."...Moreover, and of particular importance to this case, the justices expressed concern that the natural consequence of such discriminatory legislation would not only lead to the relegation of same-sex relationships to a form of second-tier status, but impair the rights of “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” as well...This is exactly the type of harm plaintiffs seek to remedy in this case.